Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 5/2009

01-05-2009 | Original Research Article

Utility Assessment in Patients with Mental Disorders

Validity and Discriminative Ability of the Time Trade-Off Method

Authors: Prof. Hans-Helmut König, Oliver H. Günther, Matthias C. Angermeyer, Christiane Roick

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 5/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: Preference-based health-state values, also referred to as utility scores, are considered an important measure of outcome in the evaluation of healthcare. A common approach to elicit utility scores is the use of the time trade-off (TTO) method; however, the data on TTO utility scores in patients with mental disorders are scarce.
Objective: To analyse the TTO method in patients with mental disorders in terms of discriminative ability, validity and the refusal to trade life time (zero trade).
Methods: In patients with affective (n = 172), schizophrenia spectrum (n = 166) and alcohol-related (n = 160) mental disorders, TTO utilities were administered through a standardized interview. Measures of quality of life (QOL) [EQ-5D, WHOQOL-BREF], subjective (SCL-90R) and objective (CGI-S) psychopathology, and functioning (GAF, GARF, SOFAS, HoNOS) provided comparison. Discriminative ability was analysed by assessing frequency distributions of TTO utilities. Validity was analysed by assessing the correlation of TTO utilities with all other scores. The association of a patient’s QOL, sociodemographic and disease-related variables with zero trade was analysed by logistic regression.
Results: Of patients with affective/schizophrenic/alcohol-related mental disorders, 153/143/145 (89/86/91%), respectively, completed the TTO elicitation; 29/43/28% of the respondents were zero traders. The mean TTO utility was 0.66/0.75/0.61 and the median was 0.85/0.95/0.75. TTO utility scores discriminated well among more impaired mental health states, but discrimination was limited among less impaired health states. In patients with affective and alcohol-related mental disorders, TTO utility scores were significantly correlated (mostly moderate: 0.3 < r < 0.5) with all other scores. However, in schizophrenic patients, TTO utility scores were only a little correlated with other subjective measures and not correlated with objective measures. QOL was significantly associated with zero trade; the influence of the other variables on zero trade was negligible.
Conclusions: TTO utility scores in patients with affective or alcohol-related mental disorders were reasonably valid, but discriminative ability was compromised by a ceiling effect due to zero trade. In schizophrenic patients, validity of TTO utility scores was not demonstrated.
Footnotes
1
Like other authors we use the terms ‘utility’ and ‘value’ interchangeably for numerical judgments of the desirability of health states,[1] although some authors restrict the term ‘utility’ specifically to utilities measured under uncertainty according to the axioms of expected utility theory.[2]
 
2
Discriminative ability refers to whether the TTO method is able to differentiate between different states of mental health. Construct validity addresses whether TTO utility scores correspond to existing measures of theoretically related constructs.[12]
 
3
Median TTO utility scores for subgroups defined by the first/second/third/fourth quartile of the WHOQOLBREF mental domain score were 0.50/0.75/0.93/1.0 for patients with affective disorders, 0.70/0.90/1.00/1.00 for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and 0.60/0.75/0.80/1.00 for patients with alcohol-related mental disorders. The worst score of the WHOQOL-BREF mental domain, i.e. the lower limit of the first quartile subgroup, was 4.1/4.1/0.0 for patient groups with affective, schizophrenia spectrum and alcohol-related mental disorders, respectively. Median TTO utility scores for subgroups defined by the first/second/third/fourth quartile of the SCL-90R (GSI) score were 0.63/0.78/0.85/1.00 for patients with affective disorders, 0.53/0.97/0.85/1.00 for patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and 0.50/0.75/0.80/0.85 for patients with alcohol-related mental disorders. The worst score of the SCL-90R (GSI), i.e. the lower limit of the first quartile subgroup, was 3.17/2.64/3.52 for patient groups with affective, schizophrenia spectrum and alcohol-related mental disorders, respectively.
 
Literature
1.
Gold M, Siegel J, Russel L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
2.
von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theories of games and economic behavior. Pinceton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1947
3.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
4.
Macran S, Kind P. “Death” and the valuation of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2001; 39: 217–27PubMedCrossRef
5.
McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25: 93–106PubMedCrossRef
6.
Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life: a review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 151–65PubMedCrossRef
7.
Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, et al. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: i-iv, 1–164PubMed
8.
Voruganti LN, Awad AG, Oyewumi LK, et al. Assessing health utilities in schizophrenia: a feasibility study. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (3): 273–86PubMedCrossRef
9.
Chisholm D, Healey A, Knapp M. QALYs and mental health care. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1997; 32: 68–75PubMedCrossRef
10.
Wells KB, Sherbourne CD. Functioning and utility for current health of patients with depression or chronic medical conditions in managed, primary care practices. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56: 897–904PubMedCrossRef
11.
Arnesen T, Trommald M. Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004; 9: 43–50PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Roick C, Deister A, Zeichner D, et al. The regional budget for mental health care: a new approach to combine inpatient and outpatient care [in German]. Psychiatr Prax 2005; 32: 177–84PubMedCrossRef
14.
World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioral disorders: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992
15.
The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208CrossRef
16.
The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med 1998; 28: 551–8CrossRef
17.
Derogatis LR. SCL-90-R: administration, scoring and procedures manual. Minneapolis (MN): National Computer Systems, 1994
18.
National Institute of Mental Health. 12-CGK: Clinical Global Impressions. In: Guy W, editor. EDCEU assessment in psychopharmacology. Rockville (MD): National Institute of Mental Health, 1970: 217–22
19.
Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1987; 13: 261–76PubMedCrossRef
20.
Bech P, Bolwig TG, Kramp P, et al. The Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Scale and the Hamilton Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1979; 59: 420–30PubMedCrossRef
21.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1994
22.
Wing JK, Beevor AS, Curtis RH, et al. Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS): research and development. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 172: 11–8PubMedCrossRef
23.
Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30PubMedCrossRef
24.
Mehrez A, Gafni A. Evaluating health related quality of life: an indifference curve interpretation for the time trade-off technique. Soc Sci Med 1990; 31: 1281–3PubMedCrossRef
25.
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996; 5: 141–54PubMedCrossRef
26.
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 209–31PubMedCrossRef
27.
Von der Schulenburg JM, Claes C, Greiner W, et al. Die deutsche Version des Euro-Qol-Fragebogens. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitswissenschaften 1998; 6: 3–20
28.
29.
König HH, Roick C, Angermeyer MC. Validity of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with schizophrenic, schizotypal or delusional disorders. Eur Psychiatry 2007; 22: 177–87PubMedCrossRef
30.
Günther O, Roick C, Angermeyer MC, et al. The EQ-5D in alcohol dependent patients: relationships among health-related quality of life, psychopathology and social functioning. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007; 86: 253–64PubMedCrossRef
31.
Supina AL, Johnson JA, Patten SB, et al. The usefulness of the EQ-5D in differentiating among persons with major depressive episode and anxiety. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 749–54PubMedCrossRef
32.
Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, et al. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 2005; 6: 124–30PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Sapin C, Fantino B, Nowicki ML, et al. Usefulness of EQ-5D in assessing health status in primary care patients with major depressive disorder. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 20PubMedCrossRef
35.
Herrman H, Hawthorne G, Thomas R. Quality of life assessment in people living with psychosis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2002; 37: 510–8PubMedCrossRef
36.
Angermeyer MC, Kilian R, Matschinger H. WHOQOL-100 und WHOQOL-BREF: handbuch für die deutschsprachige Version der WHO-Instrumente zur Erfassung von Lebensqualität. Göttingen: Hogrefe-Verlag, 2000
37.
Licht RW, Qvitzau S, Allerup P, et al. Validation of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale and the Hamilton Depression Scale in patients with major depression: is the total score a valid measure of illness severity? Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005; 111: 144–9PubMedCrossRef
38.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988
39.
König HH. Measuring preferences of psychiatric patients [in German]. Psychiatr Prax 2004; 31: 118–27PubMedCrossRef
40.
Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 477–87PubMedCrossRef
41.
Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, et al. Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 173–81PubMedCrossRef
42.
Awad AG, Voruganti LN. Impact of atypical antipsychotics on quality of life in patients with schizophrenia. CNS Drugs 2004; 18: 877–93PubMedCrossRef
43.
Kaiser W, Priebe S, Barr W, et al. Profiles of subjective quality of life in schizophrenic in- and out-patient samples. Psychiatry Res 1997; 66: 153–66PubMedCrossRef
44.
Priebe S, Oliver JPJ, Kaiser W. Quality of life and mental health care. Petersfield: Wrightson Biomedical, 1999
45.
Corrigan PW, Buican B. The construct validity of subjective quality of life for the severely mentally ill. J Nerv Ment Dis 1995; 183: 281–5PubMedCrossRef
46.
47.
Franz M, Meyer T, Reber T, et al. The importance of social comparisons for high levels of subjective quality of life in chronic schizophrenic patients. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 481–9PubMedCrossRef
48.
Tsevat J, Sherman SN, McElwee JA, et al. The will to live among HIV-infected patients. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131: 194–8PubMed
49.
Perez DJ, McGee R, Campbell AV, et al. A comparison of time trade-off and quality of life measures in patients with advanced cancer. Qual Life Res 1997; 6:133–8PubMedCrossRef
50.
Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 89–102PubMedCrossRef
51.
52.
Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, et al. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990; 10:58–67PubMedCrossRef
53.
Kassirer JP. Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med 1994; 330:1895–6PubMedCrossRef
54.
Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276:1253–8PubMedCrossRef
55.
Günther OH, Roick C, Angermeyer MC, et al. The responsiveness of EQ-5D utility scores in patients with depression: a comparison with instruments measuring quality of life, psychopathology and social functioning. J Affect Disord 2008; 105:81–91PubMedCrossRef
56.
Metadata
Title
Utility Assessment in Patients with Mental Disorders
Validity and Discriminative Ability of the Time Trade-Off Method
Authors
Prof. Hans-Helmut König
Oliver H. Günther
Matthias C. Angermeyer
Christiane Roick
Publication date
01-05-2009
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 5/2009
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200927050-00005

Other articles of this Issue 5/2009

PharmacoEconomics 5/2009 Go to the issue

Current Opinion

The Future Costs, Risks and Rewards of Drug Development

Original Research Article

Outcomes Associated with Initial versus Later Vancomycin Use in Patients with Complicated Skin and Skin-Structure Infections

Review Article

The Cost and Impact of Health Conditions on Presenteeism to Employers

Research Letter

Update of Recent Reforms in Germany to Enhance the Quality and Efficiency of Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Lipid-Lowering Drugs

Correspondence

Pharmaceutical Risk-Sharing Agreements

Review Article

Costing Infectious Disease Outbreaks for Economic Evaluation